Swiss referendum on immigration is the way forward

THERE is something surreal about hearing the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius condemn the Swiss for being “inward-looking” on account of their having voted in a referendum to limit the number of migrants from EU countries.

Would this be the same France that for years has blocked any proper reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on the grounds that it might force the country’s feather-bedded farmers to compete with food imports from outside Europe?

The same France that has used spurious safety grounds to try to keep German trains from competing with Eurostar through the Channel Tunnel?

The same France that is so good at lobbying for trade rules that work in its favour that French companies are able to sell 14 times as many goods abroad as foreign companies are able to sell in France?

It would, of course.

A master in the art of protectionism, France is always the first to complain when any other country refuses to open its borders. Switzerland is no hotbed of xenophobia. Twenty three per cent of its population is foreign – more than in any other country in Europe except for Luxembourg.

It is one of the most cosmopolitan countries in the world and hosts the headquarters of the Red Cross as well as many other international organisations. But the people of Switzerland have come to realise that while migration can be enriching, uncontrolled migration – which came about as part of a deal with the EU in 2000 – has created problems.

Swiss workers have complained that foreign labour has pushed down wages and increased living costs. Sunday’s referendum did not call for gates to be erected at the border with signs saying “Swiss only. Others keep out”. Far from it. It simply called for controlled migration so that it can distinguish between those who are likely to benefit the economy and those who won’t.

To the leaders of the EU this is an anathema. They are pursuing an aggressive ideology of free movement of people within Europe without any regard to the consequences nor to the fact that what they are proposing is highly unpopular with a huge number of EU citizens.

The open borders policy has no democratic legitimacy. It has never been properly debated in member states. It has been introduced by stealth.

When Labour first gave Eastern European migrants the right to work in Britain in 2004 I was all in favour because I could see there were industries, such as fruit farming, which were crying out for more workers.

I took the government at its word when it said that migrant workers would not be eligible to claim benefits here until they had established residence over a number of years. Yet 10 years on it is now clear that this was a cruel hoax.

The open borders policy has no democratic legitimacy. It has never been properly debated in member states. It has been introduced by stealth

Not only are migrants allowed to claim benefits in the UK but under EU laws which have only become apparent since 2004 they must be treated, from the day they arrive, in exactly the same way as people who have paid taxes here for years.

We are no longer the workshop of the world; we are fast becoming the benefits office of Europe.

Yesterday we stated that we are paying child benefit to children who don’t even live in Britain. Two years ago George Osborne stopped child benefit being paid to British households where one earner is on more than £60,000 a year. We were told that this was vital to help bring the deficit under control.

Yet British taxpayers are being forced to pay child benefit to offspring of migrant workers even if they are being brought up abroad. This is madness. A country of 60 million people cannot possibly sustain a welfare state for a population of potential claimants many times that.

It is also illogical. The purpose of child benefit is to offer help with the costs of raising children in Britain. If you pay much lower prices for food, clothes and nappies in Poland you don’t need British rates of benefit.

What the Swiss have voted for in Sunday’s referendum is a law that would compel employers to give preference to job applicants with a Swiss passport. It does not mean a ban on foreign workers; it just means that if an employer has two qualified applicants he must give the job to the one who might otherwise remain unemployed in Switzerland, with all the costs to society entails.

Switzerland provides a model for a balanced policy of migration that we could adopt if only we were not bound by EU rules. And not just migration.

The EU is contributing to our housing crisis by demanding we allow our property market to be open to people who have no intention of living here. This has made London in particular a mecca for international speculators who have been bidding up property values, acquiring properties that in many cases they leave empty as they wait for prices to rise.

As a result people who live and work in London are forced to live in unsuitable accommodation, miles from their work.

In Switzerland very different rules apply. Foreign nationals can only buy in designated holiday areas and only properties up to 200 square metres. If they want to buy elsewhere they must apply for a permit, proving they need to live in the area for their work.

Britain has always welcomed people from abroad. We have benefited and continue to benefit from the right kind of migration. But if we want to keep it that way it is time we looked to the Swiss example.